I see that many folks decided to turn down their light-bulbs and instead use candles. To which I can only ask: does anyone know if candles are worse for the environment than light bulbs powered even by coal-fired nuclear plants. Hint: look at the prices.
Has anyone bothered to research this, or was this the mother of all moments of symbolism?
I find the federal income tax to be doubly-progressive. A non-progressive tax, imho, would be a flat fee. For example, everyone pays $1000.
We could make it progressive by changing this to a percentage. For example, everyone pays 30% of their income. This way, those with higher incomes (note, not necessarily the rich) will always pay more. But everyone pays the same percentage. We could call this a flat tax, but even in this scenario high earners pay more.
In my opinion, making high earners (again, not necessarily the rich) pay an even higher percentage makes the tax system doubly-progressive.
Gah! Pasted in the wrong window! 🙂
That is OK, Speedmaster. Today I deferred Schedules D and D-1.
Anybody living in New York State must be awed by the cleaning ladies and the folks talking to Asia turning out the CF bulbs to make a silly symbolic point, and I can understand how the unsophisticated rednecks in the upstate hinterland have a Schumer brain spasm and think about taxes.
Mike Bloomberg turned out his own lights, but, then, he’s in Bermuda.
Of course there is much research, at Penn State and Princeton — silly Wintercow.
In compensation for all of those candles burning, they will kill the torch on the Statue of Liberty.
Candles don’t receive federal subsidies. Pretending that supply and demand curves aren’t politically determined lets you say everything and nothing at the same time.